[Congressional Record: April 7, 2005 (Extensions)]
[Page E590]





   THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON AN OPEN SOCIETY WITH SECURITY ACT

                                 ______


                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, April 6, 2005

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today, I reintroduce the United States
Commission on an Open Society and Security Act, expressing an idea I
began working on when the first signs of the closing of parts of our
open society appeared after the Oklahoma City bombing tragedy, well
before 9/11. This bill has grown more urgent as increasing varieties of
security throughout the country have proliferated without any thought
about their effect on common freedoms and ordinary access. The bill I
introduce today would begin a systematic investigation that takes full
account of the importance of maintaining our democratic traditions
while responding adequately to the real and substantial threats
terrorism poses.
  To be useful in accomplishing its difficult mission, the commission
would be composed not only of military and security experts, but for
the first time, they would be at the same table with experts from such
fields as business, architecture, technology, law, city planning, art,
engineering, philosophy, history, sociology, and psychology. To date,
questions of security most often have been left almost exclusively to
security and military experts. They are indispensable participants, but
these experts cannot alone resolve all the new and unprecedented issues
raised by terrorism in an open society. In order to strike the balance
required by our democratic traditions, a cross cutting group needs to
be working together at the same table.
  For years now before our eyes, parts of our open society have
gradually been closed down because of terrorism and fear of terrorism--
whether checkpoints at the Capital even when there are no alerts or
applications of technology without regard to their effects on privacy.
However, particularly following the unprecedented terrorist attack on
our country, Americans have a right to expect additional and increased
security adequate to protect citizens against this new frightening
threat. People expect government to be committed and smart enough to
undertake this awesome new responsibility without depriving them of
their personal liberty. These years in our history will long be
remembered by the rise of terrorism in the world and in this country.
As a result, American society faces new and unprecedented challenges.
We must provide ever-higher levels of security for our people and
public spaces while maintaining a free and open democratic society. As
yet, our country has no systematic process or strategy for meeting
these challenges.
  When we have been faced with unprecedented and perplexing issues in
the past, we have had the good sense to investigate them deeply and to
move to resolve them. Examples include the National Commission on
Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11
Commission), the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the
United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (also known as the
Silberman Robb Commission) and the Kerner Commission following riotous
uprisings that swept American cities in the 1960's and 1970's.
  The important difference in the Commission proposed by this bill is
that it seeks to act before a crisis in basic freedoms gradually takes
hold and becomes entrenched. Because global terrorism is likely to be
long lasting, we can not afford to allow the proliferation of security
that most often requires no advance civilian oversight or analysis of
alternatives and repercussions on freedom and commerce.
  With only existing tools and thinking, we have been left to muddle
through, using blunt 19th century approaches, such as crude blockades
and other denials of access, or risking the right to privacy using
applications of the latest technology with little attention to privacy.
The threat of terrorism to our democratic society is too serious to be
left to ad hoc problem-solving. Such approaches are often as inadequate
as they are menacing.
  We can do better, but only if we recognize and then come to grips
with the complexities associated with maintaining a society of free and
open access in a world characterized by unprecedented terrorism. The
place to begin is with a high-level presidential commission of wise men
and women expert in a broad spectrum of disciplines who can help chart
the new course that will be required to protect both our people and our
precious democratic institutions and traditions.

                          ____________________